Per a certain...gentleman's (a real gentleman's) (beautifully, btw, humble) request... (yet, of course, anyone can and should feel free to chime in.)

Let us begin and with this:

If a Christian isn't a metaphysical realist what do they say, exactly, happened in the Incarnation?

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.

"It's a...Mystery"--LOL! So is that supposed to take care of that, then?

I'm not sure I understand why the question is pertinent.

What was the Word of?

And then, what does that mean?

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.

The classical position of Nominalism is that generalities exist only in minds. For example, there are many objectively existing chairs, but the abstract concept chair has no objective existence outside of the minds of those who think about it.

The Word is an objectively existing entity--at least, so we believe--not an abstract concept.

Likewise the body of Jesus, whose body was a real, objectively existing body, not the abstract concept body.

The Incarnation is a Mystery because no one knows in detail how it was effected, but it was clearly the union of two objectively existing entites, not two abstract concepts.

Someone who dreams of drinking wine at a cheerful banquet may wake up crying the next morning. Someone who dreams of crying may go off the next morning to enjoy the sport of the hunt. When we are in the midst of a dream, we do not know it's a dream. Sometimes we may even try to interpret our dreams while we are dreaming, but then we awake and realize it was a dream. Only after one is greatly awakened does one realize that it was all a great dream, while the fool thinks that he is awake and presumptuously aware. Chuang Tzu

Per a certain...gentleman's (a real gentleman's) (beautifully, btw, humble) request... (yet, of course, anyone can and should feel free to chime in.)

Let us begin and with this:

If a Christian isn't a metaphysical realist what do they say, exactly, happened in the Incarnation?

I'm in a little over my head here, so if you have to educate me, feel free.

I'm going to presume a metaphysical realist can't have a conception of something they can't directly experience?

Let's assume that there was a person, Jesus, who actually existed. So a metaphysical realist can deal with that he existed, but not who he was, because that goes beyond what they are willing to admit?

My position is that God exists, is very real. Blu (for example) says that God is imaginary because I can't (objectively) demonstrate that God is real.

Let's say that Blu would admit that as a person, Jesus existed. But Blu couldn't admit that Jesus is God, because, to Blu, God is imaginary.

I'd better stop here.......according to..........

sdp

None of the above.

The classical position of Nominalism is that generalities exist only in minds. For example, there are many objectively existing chairs, but the abstract concept chair has no objective existence outside of the minds of those who think about it.

The Realist, on the other hand, believes that the concept chair exists objectively, independently of any objectively existing chairs--indeed, whether any actual chairs exist or not--and independently of anybody thinking about chairs.

Mind you, the whole question is a complex one, and many intermediate positions have been taken up by various philosphers over the ages.

The classical position of Nominalism is that generalities exist only in minds. For example, there are many objectively existing chairs, but the abstract concept chair has no objective existence outside of the minds of those who think about it.

The Word is an objectively existing entity--at least, so we believe--not an abstract concept.

Likewise the body of Jesus, whose body was a real, objectively existing body, not the abstract concept body.

The Incarnation is a Mystery because no one knows in detail how it was effected, but it was clearly the union of two objectively existing entites, not two abstract concepts.

Okay, but what is the Word's nature or essence?

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.